Ex Parte Bergman et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 29, 201612740593 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 121740,593 04/29/2010 Johan Bergman 24112 7590 03/30/2016 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC 1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300 Cary, NC 27518 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 4015-6849 I P24988-US2 9492 EXAMINER HAILE, AWET A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2474 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2016 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHAN BERGMAN and DIRK GERSTENBERGER Appeal2014-002810 Application 12/740,593 Technology Center 2400 Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and SCOTT B. HO\Xfi\~RD, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-002810 Application 12/740,593 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 15-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to a NodeB (NB) calculating a difference between an estimated reception time of a user equipment signal and a time reference, and determining whether the difference exceeds a predefined threshold value. The NB initiates an uplink timing adjustment when the difference exceeds the pre-defined threshold value. Spec. 6. Claim 15, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 15. A method of uplink timing adjustment of a user equipment in a Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA) communications system, said system comprising a Radio Network Controller (RNC) connected to a NodeB, said NodeB receiving signals from the user equipment, the method performed by the NodeB and comprising: calculating a difference between an estimated reception time of one of the user equipment signals and a time reference; determining whether said difference exceeds a pre-defined threshold value; and initiating the uplink timing adjustment only when said difference exceeds the predefined threshold value. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: 3GPP Choi et al. Chandra et al. 3GPP TR 25.854 v5.0.0 Dec. 2001 US 2003/0133429 Al July 17, 2003 US 2007/0133458 Al June 14, 2007 2 Appeal2014-002810 Application 12/740,593 Dalsgaard US 2009/0141701 Al June 4, 2009 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: 1. Claims 15, 16, 19, 22, 23, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Dalsgaard. 2. Claims 17, 20, 24, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Choi and Dalsgaard as applied to claims above, and further in view of Chandra. 3. Claims 18, 21, 25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Choi and Dalsgaard as applied to claims above, and further in view of 3GPP. ISSUES The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Choi in view of Dalsgaard teaches the limitations of "determining whether said difference exceeds a pre-defined threshold value; and initiating the uplink timing adjustment only when said difference exceeds the predefined threshold value," as required by claim 15. ANALYSIS We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and Final Action, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellants argue the Examiner must give patentable weight to the terms "only when," as recited in claim 15, because otherwise the Examiner is reading out limitations, and no authority was cited by the Examiner to 3 Appeal2014-002810 Application 12/740,593 support such a claim construction (App. Br. 5). Appellants further argue Choi does not teach the disputed limitation of "initiating the uplink timing adjustment only when said difference exceeds the predefined threshold value" as recited in claim 15 (App. Br. 8 (emphasis added)). Appellants also argue that in Dalsgaard, if the timing adjustment (TA) is valid, it is used right away, and if it is invalid, then a new one is promptly determined and used (App. Br. 8). According to Appellants, the validity determination step affects only which determined TA value is used - not whether an uplink timing adjustment is performed as claimed (App. Br. 8). Accordingly, Appellants assert Dalsgaard cannot be said to disclose initiating an uplink timing adjustment only when a difference exceeds a predefined threshold as required by claim 15 (App. Br. 8). Appellants also argue Choi performs its time alignment whenever a measured time delay, 8 (i.e., the time delay between an expected and actual frame reception), is outside of a specified range (i.e., less than -1/ml or greater than l/m2) (App. Br. 9 (citing Choi, Fig. 24)). According to Appellants, modifying Choi to only perform timing adjustment if 8 exceeds that range would violate the express teachings of Choi, as Choi would be unable to shift transmission time backwards because step 2423 would be forbidden from occurring (App. Br. 9). That is, restricting Choi to only initiate uplink timing adjustments when its determined difference exceeds the range would violate Choi's teachings about also initiating uplink timing adjustments when its difference is less than the range (App. Br. 9). Appellants conclude that Choi, therefore, teaches against this proposed modification (App. Br. 9). At the outset, we note the conditional method limitation of "only when said difference exceeds the predefined threshold value" need not be 4 Appeal2014-002810 Application 12/740,593 found in the cited prior art, under the broadest scenario, because the method need not invoke the step. See Ex parte Gary M Katz, 2011 WL 514314, *4 (BPAI 2011) (citing In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). See also MPEP 2106 II C "Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation." Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the limitation of "only when" makes the step optional. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds the teaching of the conditional disputed limitation in the combined teachings of Choi in view of Dalsgaard (Ans. 3-8). In particular, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Choi implicitly teaches Appellants' argued claim limitation, because Choi teaches (paras. 278, 298, 309-310 and Fig. 24, steps 2415, 2423, 2421), Node B instructing a UE to adjust uplink timing (i.e., advancing or delaying UL DPCH signal transmission time), by setting time alignment bit (TAB) value to -1 (see Fig. 24 step 2423) or 1 (see Fig. 24 step 2421) when the difference exceeds the lower limit (i.e., -1/ml) in the negative direction or when the difference exceeds the upper limit (l/m2) in the positive direction as shown in Fig. 24 step 2415 (Ans. 3). We further agree with the Examiner's finding that Dalsgaard explicitly teaches, comparing measured time difference with a predetermined threshold and initiating new timing synchronization when the measured time difference is greater than a predetermined threshold (see paras. 52-54 and Fig. 7 steps 718-724; Ans. 8). Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner's finding that because Choi initiates uplink timing when a difference exceeds a predetermined limit as discussed supra, Choi does not teach away from the teaching of Dalsgaard 5 Appeal2014-002810 Application 12/740,593 that initiates new timing synchronization when the measured time differences is greater than the predetermined threshold (Ans. 8). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 15 and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 16-28 which were not argued separately. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Choi in view of Dalsgaard teaches the limitations of "determining whether said difference exceeds a pre-defined threshold value; and initiating the uplink timing adjustment only when said difference exceeds the predefined threshold value" as required by claim 15. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 15-28. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l)(iv) (2012). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation